471–480 of 635 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is extremely level headed and on point. It's not victim blaming in the least.
Actually, pretty much every point in this is victim blaming.
This is what I call naïve. People will believe anything and everything in blogs.
Joe's behaviour is completely unacceptable. Her treatment at work like some leper again is unacceptable though some this could be attributed to awkwardness on how to broach the subject or if it should be talked about at all. Two things strike me though: Shots off of Justine's stomach. The best response I have heard from a girl in a mixed group when asked to do it was "I will do it if you do it first." It turns it fro…
It can be really hard, almost impossibly hard, to make decisions when you're suddenly confronted with a situation that breaks your understanding of a person you trust (especially a person who has power over you, and especially a situation that seriously violates social norms) - at that moment, you're intensely confused, with a big "WTF" blaring in your head, your brain is flooding with panic and adrenaline...it's not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus christ. Lying down on bar - doing body shot != permission to sexually assault.
I disagree. I have never heard the term body shot before but from all wikipedia tells me, I would conside it acceptable for a man to grab a womaons ass if the woman was in a body shot. If the woman screams no that's a different this g but it didnt happen here.
So you believe that if you do a body shot of off someone, you then have permission to sexually assault them? Wow..
I think there's a deeper cultural problem here: that the behavior of Joe had that much of an impact on Justine's life in the first place. There are women that would experience the same thing, but would not retreat into themselves in this extreme way. There are even women that would shrug it off. However, the response of Justine matches ancient societal expectations: if a woman has been violated, she loses all value.…
I can appreciate your sentiment, and we absolutely do not want to encourage the 'fragile women' meme. It certainly plays a role. However, it's only one component, and I think you may be putting a bit too much weight on it. A loss of bodily autonomy is psychologically harmful, regardless of societal expectations.
I'm putting much weight on it because of two reasons. The first is that the only way Justine is going to be happy again is by dealing with what happened in a different way. The current way obviously isn't working: she's being selfdestructive. The only way I've seen work is having people change their assumptions and beliefs, generally taking up beliefs not shared by 'society'. I'm strongly channeling Nietzsche here: society has a vested interest in making the individual feel weak, powerless, insignificant and it is ruthless and cruel in the ways in which it achieves it. The second is that I believe preventing these things from happening is hard and that they will keep happening for a long time to come, no matter how hard we try. The 'prevent this' angle is covered well by many others, but the 'prevent these things from having such a strong impact' isn't. I believe it is a damn waste that so many people are made to believe they are weak, worthless, insignificant, guilty, for whatever reason, due to whatever history. I believe Justine is a prime example of what is wrong on this front. One incident had enough power to completely change who she feels she is, how she should behave, what she represents. This one incident has taken over everything. Why can it have this power? Because we allow it to have this power. And we are responsible for taking that power away!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want to say what she did is problematic then you have to argue that she is lying. Plain and simple. Do you do that? Can we stop having these black or white discussions? After more then half a year, there is no such thing as the truth. Even if the whole thing was on tape we cannot piece together what was going on in their heads at the time. It seems that every time some case of harassment hits the news people…
So, you are saying she is supposed to shut up or what? Or what is the point you are trying to make? You want to muffle her voice? That’s your point, right?
For unrelated reasons - namely that I don't believe naming and shaming is a working justice system and that it diverts from the underlying social issues - I would prefer to leave names out of such blog entries.
But the reason for my post is that I found the quoted passage to be one of the many oversimplifications that crop up again and again in these discussions.
[Edit: Rewording and fixing stupid grammar mistakes]
It says a lot about society that in order for anyone to criticize a woman, one must first seek absolution by criticizing the man first, and harsher, than the woman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would condone drugging your victim and is obviously and dangerously wrong.
Yes, obviously that is an important exception, which doesn't change the fact that the statement is generally correct.